Why public servants are so frustrated

Like many public servants, I strongly object to the government's latest return-to-office directive, forcing federal workers back on-site three days a week. We're frustrated, disillusioned and angry about it; what other Canadians may not understand is that they should be too.

The issue is not just improved work-life balance and mental health for public servants (which is certainly important). It's also about the economy (the skyrocketing costs of maintaining property, or of installing, supporting and updating technological infrastructure); the environment (the carbon footprint of real estate and commuter traffic); equity and inclusion (impacts on potential employees living in rural or remote areas, or who have physical or mental disabilities); and attracting a skilled workforce (prospective talent that can find more flexible employment elsewhere; talent pools that exclude employees constrained by location or health barriers).

A flexible, hybrid work environment, where on-site work is determined by operational needs, makes financial, environmental and social sense. Telework has also been shown to improve productivity and job satisfaction. By contrast, the government has offered no rationale for its blanket return-to-the-office policy.

Premier Doug Ford's argument — that downtown businesses need the foot traffic of the public service workforce to survive — is an inadequate justification for a short-sighted policy. Do Canadians really want to be chained to an obsolete and limiting business model that benefits only a few? I would rather believe that, if they had the choice, Canadians would support instead a model that improves all of our lives, as well as those of future generations, and that fosters a more economic, flexible and skilled public service.

Megan Taylor, Ottawa